|
|
|
|
November 14, 2010
The Drug War Comes To Obama Care
David Rittgers at National Review takes a look at how a Supreme Court decision on the Drug War is being used to justify the individual mandate in the recently passed Health Care Bill. Here are Dave's opening remarks: If the generation of "limited government" lawmakers freshly chosen to man the trenches in Washington wishes to be taken seriously, the butcher's bill must include some of the social conservatives' sacred cows.And that brings us to the Central Point. How do conservatives justify the Drug War without a Constitutional Amendment like the one needed for alcohol prohibition? Well Commerce Clause Jurisprudence starting with Wickard vs. Filburn does the trick. David begins his explanation: Many conservatives have long argued that the federal government is broadly empowered to prosecute the drug war under Congress's authority over interstate commerce. In the name of the drug war, they have been willing to allow federal law-enforcement officers to prosecute seriously ill patients who use medical marijuana in compliance with their states' laws.Ah yes. The Raich decision. Let me give you the short version. Angel Raich and Diane Monson were growing medical marijuana to ease Angel Raich's pain from an inoperable brain tumor and several other conditions caused by that tumor. Justice Thomas wrote a brilliant dissent in that case. Let me quote a part of it. Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything-and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.And there you have it. Conservatives cheered when Raich lost her case. And here is David's final comment on Obamacare/Raich: The jump from Raich to Obamacare is a short one, at least in the government's eyes. The dissenters in Raich predicted the expansion of Commerce Clause authority. Justice Thomas warned that if the federal government could override a state's licensing of medical marijuana, "then it can regulate virtually anything -- and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers." Justice O'Connor noted the "perverse incentive to legislate broadly pursuant to the Commerce Clause" -- the more broadly Congress writes a law, the more likely Raich's logic is to uphold it. O'Connor discussed how the Court's logic would allow the government to regulate (and ban) non-commercial activities that would detract from regulated markets, such as home-care substitutes for daycare. This would be funny, if a federal judge had not just ruled that being alive and breathing means you must buy health insurance or face the consequences.No money changed hands in Raich and that affected Interstate Commerce. The same argument will be used to justify Obama Care. If you don't buy insurance you will be affecting Interstate Commerce. I don't see how you get around that. Which means that we can not depend on the courts to save us. Now it is up to the legislature. But that means the end of the Republic. Because we are now subject to what ever laws the current or next Congress passes. We are now unprotected from the naked power of the State and the vote of the legislature. The era of limited government is over. Finito. It was nice while it lasted. And all because Social Conservatives like Scalia hate drugs. Way to go guys. And for those of you who are of a social conservative bent may I remind you that wrath is a deadly sin. Is it ever. Here is a book that covers Wickard and some other cases: The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon on 11.14.10 at 02:21 PM
Comments
Setting aside who abuses power the most...for the moment. How can it be fixed? The courts pick paragraphs or even a single word then bend and twist it in a manner of their choosing. If that doesn't do the trick just add an intent or concept. So even we do the heavily lifting as country and add an amendment addressing drugs - it wouldn't matter. The amendment could legalize or criminalize drugs it wouldn't matter. The court will do as it pleases. Is there a solution? Amend the Constitution and it will be struck down as umm...unconstitutional. BTW - If Scalia gets it right; it is still ends up a 5-4 decision. Ponderosa · November 15, 2010 02:11 PM Ponderosa, The core problem is the people. When the great mass of the American people really do believe in limited government that is what we will get. First in the legislature then in the courts. Right now what we get "limited government, except for....." and the door is opened for all kinds of mischief. M. Simon · November 15, 2010 05:10 PM the butcher's bill must include some of the social conservatives' sacred cows. Starting with the War on Drugs.
In case you somehow missed it, the Democratic Party had complete control of Congress for the past four years. For two of these years there was a Democrat in the WH. And yet, the "war on drugs" continues unabated. To a rational mind this might be seen as a sign that the "war on drugs" is not actually the idea of those social conservatives who haunt your dreams. flenser · November 19, 2010 03:16 PM The Justice Department is defending Obamacare by asserting that a 2005 Supreme Court case, Gonzales v. Raich, permits such a broad reading of the Commerce Clause that the federal government can tell individual citizens that they have to buy health insurance. The Justice Department can argue that up is down and black is white without making it so. Gonzales v. Raich was not an expansion of the Commerce Clause, it was a continuation of a string of cases going back to the 1930's. These cases concluded that the growing of a plant even for ones own consumption (be it wheat or cannabis) is an activity which may be regulated under the Commerce Clause. Gonzales v. Raich does not and cannot be construed to say that the Federal government may mandate that people purchase health insurance. That would be like claiming that Roe v Wade empowers the federal government to require you to purchase a new car every four years. flenser · November 19, 2010 03:27 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
November 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
November 2010
October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Libertarianism is dictatorial collectivism. And freedom is slavery.
Letter To A Friend Sick of whatever I'm sick of, but how sick! This Is An Order A Split You're not special, but WE are -- an open letter to President Obama Abortion Prohibition Enforcement The Drug War Exception Is Sarah Palin Good Or Is She Lucky? The American Sphinx
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I currently have no health insurance.
So, since I am not engaged in the industry which would provide me health insurance, under the Commerce Clause, I can be required to engage in interstate commerce, even if the company I choose to purchase health insurance from does no business outside of this state.
If law can be tortured to this extent, then why can't I?
.